rand paul tried to do the same thing in the senate. again, what successful social movements do is reset the political agenda. and codepink is pretty clear about its priorities, and sometimes it is successful in issues that alive that would be neglected. host: in beginning of the conversation with medea benjamin's, she said a couple of times about doing our jobs as citizens. do you think the first amendment, in addition to bestowing freedoms, implies implicit responsibility on the part of citizens? guest: the first amendment means we protect the right of people we hate to speak and promote ideas that we find abhorrent. so that calls on us immediately to be more tolerant than our gut reaction would call for.

we would hope that everybody would be civil and accurate. but any first amendment absolutist knows that is not the way the political debate works. i think our responsibility as citizens is to try to keep the spectrum of debate as broad as possible. host: here is a democrat in kentucky on our independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, i have a comment and question. i am not affiliated with any political -- i am not republican. i am not democratic or independent. i'm american, first and foremost. does not matter what my party affiliation is. my comment is -- why can't we come up with simple solutions? our government seems to make everything so complex. my question -- the protests are

not working. so what is the best thing for americans to do? what is the best way that we can peacefully get our politicians to come together and work as americans, so that we can solve issues like homelessness, hunger. we have so many things going on in this country right now that we need to fix, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to fix these things. there are simple solutions. host: thanks. guest: boy, i wish there were simple solutions to everything we care about. i think the most important thing for us to do as citizens is to try to keep our politicians paying attention to the things they care about. and that means doing all the things you learned in civics. writing letters. now we do that on e-mail. that means of voting and talking to people you agree with.

it is not that the squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but the wheels that do not squeak do not get anything. so we have to keep the issues that we care about on the political agenda. and codepink has been stalwart at pushing the issues that its members care about. host: let's go to our facebook post. we have gone back to our conversation with medea benjamin. ian says -- i liked her. i do not agree with her interrupting hearings. she's wacked. why do people feel that they have the right to assault someone because they are interrupting from geoffrey, i agree with everything medea benjamin said, until she went off on gun control. the comments continue on c- span.org -- on facebook/cspan. our republican line.

caller: i think it is a travesty to misuse tax dollars. i uphold codepink and any other civil rights groups. they are using government surveillance to rest citizens. ens.o harass citiz they may have an enemy list and you could be on it. they could use this enemies list to intimidate and harass innocent people. i think it is a great thing. thank you for having this show. it is wonderful. guest: again, the ideal of american politics is to bring all the disputes out into the open where people can fight it out without picking up arms. and surveillance does not fit that model. host: let's hear from richmond virginia, democrat line. lesley. hi there. go ahead with your comment.

caller: i want to say that i think being -- it is a wonderful thing. without it, we're not speaking out, we are not making our voices heard. i am part of a women's group that is holding a big rally in richmond, virginia on august 27. it's called women matter, use your power. i love codepink. i love all of the activist groups that are speaking out against the injustices that are happening in our country. host: so the rally you are having in virginia, what is that about? caller: we are focusing on the issues that affect women in our state of virginia. medicaid extension, reproductive rights, equal pay, ratifying the equal rights amendment, all the different things that affect women in the state of virginia and our country. host: david meyer, it takes us back to the beginning what you said earlier today you had been

thinking about the suffrage movement. guest: that national women's party pushed equal rights back in 1920. it was considered in the united states in the 1970's and died in the 1980's. we learn from richmond, virginia, that the issue did not go away. it is still on the agenda. it is very exciting. host: david meyer is sociology and political science professor at the university of california- irvine. his book is "the politics of protest." thank you for spending time with us this evening on c-span. guest: it was my pleasure. host: a reminder, the conversation continues on line c-span.org or facebook.com/cspan. feel free to post your comments on the role of political protest groups in the political

discussion. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [indiscernible] night, another call- in program regarding veterans health care issues. it begins at 8 p.m. eastern with , connecticutz veterans affairs department. at 9 p.m., we will take your calls live. omorrow night here onh c-span. up, defense secretary chuck hagel speaks out on the national -- speaks out at the national defense university. president obama speaks about gun violence in a visit to numbeden.

and henry paulson on china. in a ways out there with respectable -- that respectable women did not do. this was a time when the women's movement is underway. interestingly enough, someone is veryia tyler conservative in some ways, but in terms of breaking from traditional ways that a woman should behave, she is doing it in a way that other women are not at that time. >> our conversation on julia tyler, the second wife of president john tyler is available on our website, c- span.org/firstladies. that is really significant this has been preserved all of these years.

i'm one point, there were several of these mounds around the valley. only a couple of them have survived. most of the mounds were much smaller. .t's just around survives also also's sister mound survives. this great mound has survived. it gives us an opportunity to study and learn about their lifestyle and hopefully learn something about how complex their social and political organization was. with archaeology, one of the great things we have about archaeology is that when we look into the past and see what people did like building b is canal systems, it gives you hope for the future. if they can do this in the sticks, whatigging

is it that we cannot do? >> this weekend, the history and literary life of mesa, arizona, including a look at the -- t mound built by the saturday at noon eastern on c- americanbook tv" and " history tv" on c-span 3. speech asfirst major defense secretary, chuck hagel discuss how budget cuts will affect the military morale and readiness. he also comments on threats coming from north korea. he begins this address at the national defense university in washington, d.c. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you very much.

thank you. general, thank you. i am very proud to be here. i am proud to be among all of you who give so much every day, and will continue to contribute to our country and making a better world, and i think you for that service. for a fancy general, to give such an overstated introduction to a retired army sergeant -- >> [laughter] >> it is something that i rarely get. but i am very appreciative of the generous introduction, and to you, general, all of your staff and colleagues, thank you for what you continue to do for our country in this important institution, an institution, i think, as important for our country and for the development not only of our leaders, but the leaders of other nations who are

represented here today. i think it is one of the wisest investment our country has made and will continue to make in developing our leaders, helping other nations develop their leaders, based not just on military doctrine, but on the principles and values of the mutual respect and dignity, and the rule of law. this facility, this institution, has done that very effectively for many, many years, so i thank you all. generations of military leaders have come to this institution here at fort mcnair to receive training and education. they needed to succeed not just in combat, but in their daily lives.

the responsibilities you all will take on will be immense. everyday, you will face decisions with real implications for the safety and welfare of our troops, and the security of our nation. as you move onward and upward in your career as, i would urge you to always keep three questions in mind before making decisions. first, does this help protect national security? second, is this in america's strategic interest, which include the economic, political, and moral dimensions of our interests and responsibilities? third, is this were the of the -- wirthorthy of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families? these questions speak to the department of defense's most

basic responsibilities, defending the nation, the advance in america's strategic interests, and keeping faith with its quiet heroes. how we fulfill these interim responsibilities at a time of unprecedented ships in the world order, new global challenges, and deep global fiscal uncertainty, is the subject of my remarks today. i want to focus on challenges, choices, and opportunities. the challenges posed by a changing strategic landscape and new budget constraints. the choices we have in responding to these challenges, and the opportunities that exist to fundamentally reshape defense enterprises to better reflect 21st century realities. ndu is inappropriate venue for this discussion today because the success of these efforts ultimately rests on the abilities and judgments of our military and civilian leaders. those here today will make those decisions and those judgments.

as president dwight eisenhower said during a visit to the ground more than 50 years ago, and i quote, the wise and prudent resources required by the the defense calls for extraordinary skill in measuring the military, political, and economic and social machinery of our modern life so that the greatest effective use is made of resources with a minimum of waste and misapplication. as a former army officer who graduated from this campus shortly before the onset of the great depression, eisenhower knew of what he spoke. the security landscape of 2013 is a far different character than the world of 1960, or even the world of a few years ago. but eisenhower's words still ring true today. the united states is emerging from more than a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan but the threat of a violent extremism

persists and continues to emanate from weak states and and govern spaces in the middle east and north africa. there also stands an array of other security challenges of varying vintage and degrees to risks of the united states. the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, the increased availability of advanced military technologies in the hands of state and not state actors, the risk of regional conflicts that could draw in the united states, the debilitating and dangerous curves of human despair and poverty, as well as the uncertain implications of the environmental degradation. cyber attacks barely registered as a threat to a decade ago, have grown into a defining security challenge with potential adversaries seeking the ability to strike america's security, energy, economic, and critical infrastructure with the benefit of anonymity and

distance. the world today is combustible and complex. america's responsibilities are as enormous as they are humbling. these challenges to our security and prosperity demand america's continued global leadership and global engagement, and they require a principled realism that is true to our values. the united states military remains an essential tool of american power, but one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits. most of the press and security challenges today have important political, economic, and cultural components and do not necessarily lend themselves to be resolved by conventional military strength. indeed, the most destructive and

horrific attack ever on the united states came not from fleets, ships, bombers, or armored divisions, but from 19 fanatical men wielding box cutters and 1-way plane tickets. so our military must continue to adapt. we adapt in order to remain effective and relevant in the face of threats markedly different from those that shaped our defense institution during the cold war. since 9/11, the military has grown more deployable, more expeditious, more flexible, more lethal, and certainly more professional. it has also grown significantly older, as measured by the age of our platforms. and it has grown enormously more expensive in every way. today, america's defense institutions are emerging, and in some cases, recovering from

more than a decade of sustained conflict while confronting new strategic challenges. in doing so would significantly less resources than the department has had in the past. as this audience knows well, this process of change and a realignment is already well underway. it began under secretary gates, who recognized what he called the post-9/11 gusher of defense spending was coming to an end. under his leadership, the farmer were to reduce overhead cost within the military services and cancelled or curtailed in number of major modernization program that were performing poorly, or poorly suited to real world demand. the realignment continued undersecretary panetta who worked closely with president and the joint chiefs of staff to craft new defense strategic guidelines and a defense budget which reduced the department planned spending by $487 billion over 10 years.

even while reshaping the force to become smaller and leaner, this budget made in foreign investments in the new strategy, including rebalancing our defense posture to asia-pacific, and prioritizing critical capabilities, such as cyber, special operations, and unmanned systems. so the department of defense had been preparing for this inevitable downturn in defense budgets and has taken significant steps -- steps to reduce spending and adapt to a new strategic environment. nevertheless, the combination of fiscal pressures and a grid lock political process has led to far more abrupt and deeper reductions that were planned or expected. now dod is grappling with the serious and immediate challenges of sequester, which is forcing us to take as much as a $41 billion cut in this current fiscal year.

if it continues, we are projected to reduce spending by another $500 billion over the next decade. the sequestered cut, because it falls heavily on operations and modernization accounts, is already having a destructive and potentially damaging impact on the readiness of the force. the department has already made many cuts, including cuts to official travel and facility maintenance. we have imposed hiring freezes and halted many important but not essential activities. however, we will have to do more. across-the-board reductions aside we are looking at will demand that we furloughs civilian personnel which could affect morale and may impact productivity. cuts will fall heavily on maintenance and training which further erodes the readiness of the force, and will be costly to regain in the future. as the service chiefs have said, we are consuming our readiness.

meanwhile, our investment accounts in the defense industrial base are not spare damage. as we also take indiscriminate cuts across these areas of the budget. these are the challenges that face us right now and i am determined to help the department get ahead of them. general dempsey has said we need to read through this crisis. i have told our senior leadership, the joint chiefs, the service secretaries and undersecretary of defense, we are all in this together, and we will come out of it together. the task ahead for the department is to prepare for the future, but not in a way that the collects, or is oblivious to the realities of the present. we are therefore undertaking a process to develop choices, options, and priorities to deal with further reductions in the defense budget that could result

from a comprehensive deficit- reduction deal, or the persistence of sequestered. all anchored by the president defends strategic guidance. my goal in directing the strategic choices in management review, which is now being led by deputy secretary carter, who is working with general dempsey, is to ensure that we are realistic the confronting both our strategic and fiscal challenges. it is not to assume or tacitly except deep cuts, such as those imposed by sequester, will endure, or that these cuts can be accommodated without a significant reduction in military capabilities. at the same time, we cannot simply wish or hope our way to carrying out irresponsible national security strategy for its implementation. the department must understand the challenges and uncertainties plan for the risks, and yes, recognize the opportunities inherent in budget constraints

in more efficient restructuring. this exercise is also about matching missions with resources, looking at ends, ways, and means. this effort, by necessity, will consider big choices which could lead to fundamental change and a further prioritization of the use of our resources to retain that involve not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices, but where necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges. all this with the goal of insuring that we can better execute the strategic guidance as set out by the president. in order for this effort to proceed with the to be steely- eyed and clear headed in our analysis and explore the full range of options for implementing our national

security strategy. we need to challenge all past assumptions and we need to put everything on the table. for example, is already clear to me that any serious effort to reform or reshape our defense enterprise must confront the principal drivers of growth in the department's budget, namely acquisitions, personnel costs, and overhead. in many respects, the biggest long-term fiscal challenge facing the department is not be flat or declining top line budget. it is the growing unbalance in where that money is being spent internally. if left unchecked, spiraling costs sustain existing structures and institutions provide benefits to personnel and develop replacement for aging weapons platforms while eventually crushing of spending on procurement, operations, and readiness. the budget category that enable

the military to be, and stay prepared. if these trends are not reversed former chief of naval operations warned that pod could transform -- dod could transform from an agency protecting the nation to an agency administering and if it programs capable of buying overpriced equipment. thanks to the efforts of my predecessors and other dod leaders, we have made an effort in this crowding out in this budget and future budgets. much more hard work, difficult decisions and strategic prioritizing remains to be done. the political and institutional obstacles to necessary reforms

need to be overcome. i'm concerned that pruning over the last four years that the strategy still require systems that are vastly more expensive and technologically risky than what we are promised are budgeted for. we need to continually move forward with designing an acquisition system that responds more efficiently, effectively and quickly to the need of troops and commanders in the field. once a that rewards-cost and efficiency so our programs don't take longer, cost more and deliver less than initially planned and promised. with full recognition for the great stresses that our troops and our families have and placed under, and been under for nearly 12 years of war and the contributions that civilian employees make to the departments mission, fiscal realities demand another hard look at personnel.

how many people we have both military and civilian? how many do we need? what do these people do? and how do we compensate them for their work, their service and their loyalty with pay, benefits, and health care? these are tough questions from a such as what is the right mix of civilian and military personnel across the department and its various components? within the force, what is the right balance between officers and enlisted? without necessarily accepting the off stated claim that there are more than 300,000 service members performing civilian and commercial functions, what is the appropriate distribution of troops performing combat, support and administrative duties? there will likewise need to be a scrutiny of the command structure, most of which leads back to the early years of the cold war.

the last major defense reorganization was during the major defense bill the been focused on improving dryness and establishing clear operational change of command. cost and efficiency were not major considerations then. goldwater nichols strengthened the joint staff and the combatant commands. it went about doing this by layering joint organizations and processes a top service organizations and the top hospices. the elevation of the former did not automatically lead to the diminishing of the latter. today, the operational forces measured in battalions, ship's, and aircraft wings have shrunk radically since the cold war. yet our support structure sitting atop these smaller fighting forces have stayed

intact. with minor exceptions, and in some cases, they are actually increasing in size and drank. -- size and rank. it is still not clear that every option has been considered to pare back the war office back office. -- largest back office. the fourth estate consists of the office of the secretary, the joint staff, the combatant commands, defense agencies and feel that the beauties, the missile defense agency -- the field activities, the missile defense agency. with respect to the fourth estate, former secretary of defense gates compared the process of looking for savings as going on an easter egg hunt.

an appropriate image for this time of year. secretary panetta was more polite. he called the pentagon "a big damn bureaucracy." it does not sound like leon panetta at all. [laughter] the military is not and should never the run like operation. but that does not mean we don't have a good deal to learn from what the private sector has achieved over the past 20-30 years in which reducing layers of upper and middle management not only reduced costs and micromanagement, but also led to more agile and effective organizations. and more empowered junior leaders. in light of all these trends, we have to examine whether dod a structured and incentivize to ask for more and do more.

that entails taking a hard look at requirements. how they are generated and where they are generated from. it could turn out that making dramatic changes in each of these areas could prove unwise, untenable, or politically impossible. yet we have no choice but to take a close look at how we can do all of this better. in order to address acquisition, personnel and overhead costs in smart ways, they have not been done before. we need time, flexibility, and support and partnership of congress during we also need long-term budget certainty. one of the biggest problem's the sequester has brought is that it is requiring immediate, deep and steep cuts. this means that the department will by necessity have to look at large cuts in operations and modernizations to find savings to be quickly realized. the kinds of reforms the

department needs in other areas would take some time to implement and take longer for significant savings to accrue. if we get time and flexibility to implement savings, we could limit the impact of spending reductions on for structure and modernization while still making a significant contribution to deficit reduction. i contrast, the cuts required by sequester afford neither time nor flexibility. these dramatic cuts would certainly require reductions in would have long been considered core military capabilities and changes in the traditional role in missions among the uniformed services. we will have to take a critical look at our military capabilities and ensure that our core structure and modernization plans are directly and truly aligned with the present strategy. that includes taking a new look at how we define and measure readiness and risk. and factor both into military requirements.

it also includes balancing the competing demands of capacity and capability. how much of any given platform we need and how much capability it needs to have to fulfill in real-world missions. the size and shape needs to be constantly reassessed come a mix of conventional and unconventional capabilities, general purpose and social operations units, and the appropriate balance between forward stations, rotation we deployed, and home-based ports. we also need to reassess how much we can depend on our allies and our partners. what can we anticipate from them in the way of capabilities and capacity? and factor these calculations into both our short and long- term planning. a thorough examination of the way our military is organized and operates will also highlight

our inherent strengths. including leadership development, mobility, logistics, special operations, cyberspace and resurgent film and. another course -- and research and development. another core strength is the ability to adapting. in the lean years between world war i and world war ii, during the great depression, a group of farsighted officers with virtually no funding or prospect of promotion -- you will remember in your history how long general eisenhower was a lieutenant colonel. a good example of what we are talking about. they conceived important new platforms and operating concepts

for armored warfare, amphibious assault, aircraft carriers, submarines, and long-range bombers. all of which proved decisive in the second world war. after the korean war, eisenhower looked into defense spending, exceeding 10% of our gross to domestic product while investing in our -- gross and messed it product while investing in our long-range abilities.-- domestic product while investing in our long- range abilities. as the military grappled with challenges to morale and readiness after vietnam, it also made a transition to an all voluntary force and made should she just investments in stealth and platforms like the f-16 and the abrams tank. even during the 1990s

procurement holiday, we invested in satellite guidance, in networking systems and remotely piloted aircraft that had been game changers during the last decade of war. the goal of the senior leadership of this department today is to learn from the miscalculations and mistakes of the past drawdowns and make the right decisions that will sustain our military strength, advance our strategic interest, and protect our nation well into the future. let me now conclude with some comments on america and its role in the world. during this time of budget turmoil and after a financial crisis, in a decade when our country has grown weary of war and skeptical of foreign entanglements, questions arise about the merits of america's role in the world, america's global leadership.

america does not have the luxury of retrenchment. we have too many global interests at stake, including our security, prosperity, and our future. if we refuse to lead, something, someone will fill the vacuum. the next great power may not use its power as responsibly or judiciously as america has used its power over the decades since world war ii. we have made mistakes and miscalculations with our great power. but as history has advanced, america has helped making her world for all people with its power. a world where america does not lead is not a world that i wish my children to inherit. more than a century ago on this campus, while laying the corner stone

on the building that now bears his name, roosevelt declared that the united states had "the mere trend of events been forced into the position of world power." he went on to say that america "cannot bear these responsibilities are right unless it's a is coded for peace and justice with the assured self-confidence of the just man armed." what distinguishes america is not our power. the world has known great power. it is america's purpose and our commitment to making a better life for all people. we are a wise, thoughtful and steady nation. worthy of our power, generous in spirit and humble in our purpose. that is the america we will

defend together, with the purpose and self-confidence of the just man armed. thank you. [applause] thank you. >> if you have questions that are not too tough, i will take a few. [laughter] and even if a general asks a question, i will answer it. [laughter] yes, there's one back here. >> hello, thank you for coming. jessica lynch from national war college. i definitely think that you will have the steely eyed vision to lead us through this difficult

time. but i do have a difficult question. i do appreciate that you said that civilians are important. but why are we still furloughing? in case your divisors haven't told you, it is affecting morale. >> thank you first for what you do. and your contributions to our security. your question regarding furloughs, i wish i didn't have to answer that question. i wish we had other options. but the reality is that we are dealing with a $41 billion shortfall that was not planned for. as also noted in my remarks, many of the accounts where we must focus our

readiness and our first mission, securing this country, those are a counselor we don't have enough resources. operations, missions, we have had to cut training. many of you in this room are aware of the wings we have had to stand down, other consequences. as we try to be fair and analyze where we take those cuts and we take them because we have no choice, and trying to minimize the hurt and the pain that these cuts are causing across our entire range of responsibilities and, first of all, people, we have had to look at everything. we have had to look at all of the accounts.

we have had to look at where the money goes. we initially thought that we might have to make some difficult decisions on furlough as long as 22 days. because of congress's actions a couple of weeks ago, passing a continuing resolution, we have been able to move some monies around with a little more flexibly. we still don't have a lot of flexibility. no matter how you look at it, we did not get any more money. so now we're looking at the possibility of furloughs up to 14 days. if we can do that better and less, we will, recognizing that morale will be affected. but the tough decisions i will have to be made and we will have to make them are done on the basis of what we think is the most fair way to do this.

but our readiness and our capabilities have to always come first because it is the first mission and responsibility of this institution, the protection and security of this country. so as i began my answer, which i know is not a good answer, i wish i did not have to answer that question. if we can do better, we will do better. and believe me, every person that the pentagon is working very hard to try to continue to minimize this issue for our civilian people. at the same time, i want to be honest with you and not this lead you about the reason -- and not mislead you about the reality that we find ourselves in. yes. >> thank you, sir.

i appreciate your remarks. i appreciate the news this morning that you yourself will be taking a pay cut as we go through this furlough. i very much appreciate the gesture. however, as we look into the future, you mention in your remarks that you are looking at strategic cuts that involve military benefits -- healthcare, retirement, and compensation. are those cuts imminent where they are coming as a result of looking into cuts in the future? >> it is their ability to sustain the commitments we have made to the men and women who joined the military as well as our civilians. we make promises.

this country makes commitments to people here in we will honor those. but i don't think there is anyone here today that has not heard of or aware of the fact that, if you play this out 10-20 years, we won't be able to sustain the current personnel costs and retirement benefits. there will be no money in the budget for anything else. as admiral ruffin said, we will become essentially a transfer agency. how do we do this now to get some lead time on this so we can adjust to the realities that we know are coming? social security is the same thing.

medicare is the same thing. you can't sustain those programs, those commitments. we know that. but that is not the question. the question is how do you then respond to it? we have time to get ahead of it if we start planning for it now. that is part of the review. it's not new. there is no one in this institution that has not been aware of the fact that we would have to start adjusting in some way. but what i believe is that your immediate question, as far as immediate cuts to health care and so on, no, i don't see those kinds of things coming this year. we will go forward in budget presentations and ask the congress to explore ways where it is possible to increase fees on different programs. i think that is fair. and i think that we have to look at everything. as i said, i'm sorry. i wish it was otherwise.

but that is a fact of life. and the longer we do for these things, the worse it will be for all of us. so let's be smart. let's try to get ahead of it. that is the whole point of why i directed our leaders to come up with a strategic review. we have resources. we will continue to have resources. but we have to be wise in how we apply those resources. your people are your most important product. without people, systems don't matter. it does not matter how sophisticated your weapons are. your people are everything in any institution. and you take care of your people. i am committed to do that. i think every leader here is committed or we wouldn't be here.

your families, the commitments have made, we're doing your thing we can to ensure that. and we will continue to do that. >> good afternoon, sir. as much as i would like to complain about a pay cut, i have a different question. you mentioned the pivot to asia. i am interested in what you think we could do to build a better relationship with china to help work on containing the belligerence we see coming out of north korea. >> i had a long conversation last night with the new chinese minister of defense. general chang. it was very positive. we talked about some pretty tough issues, starting with north korea, touchy issues like taiwan. as i think all of you know, general dempsey's going to china this month and secretary kerry will be in china this month. as you also know, secretary of treasury lou was in china in the

last few weeks. so we are continuing to reach out and strengthen our relationship with china. china is a great power. it will continue to be a great power. we have many common interests. general chang and i talked about those common interests. he have differences. we will always have differences. we have differences with allies. it's not differences that matter. it is how you deal with differences. you build a platform of a relationship based on your common interests, not on your differences. and north korea is a very good example of a common interest. certainly, the chinese don't want a public hated and d, don't want a complicate combustible situation to explode into a worse situation. it is not in their interest that

to happen. it is not in our interest or in our allies interests. like always, relationships are built face to face. they are built around common interests. institutional interests as well as personal interests. and using this institution as an example, 66 nations represented here in this room, this is the way you build understanding with each other. this is the way you start to accept each other as a sovereign people, respect each other's dignity as human beings. then you work out from there. i think we can continue to build a strong relationship with china, with our differences. and there are significant differences. but there are too many common interests for both our countries. and with why steady leadership,

-- wise, steady leadership, and i think the chinese have shown their leadership to the study, wise, careful, and the more we can exchange at every level, programs, especially military-to-military per grams, i don't know of a single -- military-to-military programs, i don't know of a single impact greater than building military- to-military relationships. the best example is egypt. i'm not sure things would have turned out the same in egypt over the last two years without that. you can't solve all the problems nor should you be expected to, but you can do an awful lot. and as i said in my remarks and no one in this room has heard this for the first time because you all live it and in your

capacities as leaders, military leaders today, as valleys have been, but especially today, they are far more than military leaders. your diplomats. your psychologists and your mentors. your educators. your referees. your school board chairman. you have many possibilities. that is real. that is life. that is what makes the difference in people, in understanding people. so i am a bit of far field, but i am a former senator. [laughter] i will hear about this i'm sure at a hearing next week. [laughter] but i think it's relevant to your question. thank you. yes.

>> good afternoon, sir. i am wendy joy from the department of navy, he civilian. -- a civilian. thank you for being here today. what do you believe are some opportunities that we have to partner with the department of state, the department of homeland security, and in order to secure and protect our homeland given the state of our budget? >> i think the interagency relationship is always a key part of any agency institution carrying out its responsibilities. your particular question mentions department of state and homeland security. many times, secretary gates sounded like the secretary of state.

why aren't we rebalancing priorities and the resources at state where some of these programs should reside and used to reside? in my opinion, he was right. state has a very important role to play in our foreign policy, obviously, but also in the interagency relationships that you mentioned, homeland security, which, as you all knew, is a new agency. but they all connect. there is not an interest, not a connection point that doesn't affect all the other connection points that serve our interests, whether it's homeland interests, economic interest, diplomatic interests, and military interests, energy interest, cyber interest, whatever. they are all connected in. omen security, the way it is structured -- and i was there in

the senate when we rolled up way iteland security, the is structured -- and i was there in the senate when we rolled up agencies and the one -- has authorities in a rather significant for homeland security. we are still working through how we all work together. and that's ok. but i think another part of your question is how do you maximize and add value to each other for the bigger purpose and objective in this country? you are exactly right. you have just identified in my opinion may be the most important dimension of where we will all have to go as government leaders in this country over the next few years and beyond. we have not been getting a return on investment. the taxpayer has not been

getting their return on investment in how we connect our agencies and departments and how we work together. we are getting better. everyday we are getting better better, far better today than five years ago. but we are kind of new at this. so you can continually overload the circuits like i think we have in the last 10 years in the department of defense and say, well, you will do it all and we will give you the money good but you have the resources on the 20's and the management and the people, so on and so on, so you go do it because you can do it faster. and in all most every case get it done better. that distribution of labor and resources has to now be rebalanced. because there is a bigger return that can come from all of that. so i think that your question is a very important one. it is central to everything that we will all be doing and continue to do, especially you young leaders who will be moving

into very important positions in your careers. you are here at a special time. you really are. every generation has an opportunity to reshape the world. but some generations really have big opportunities. your generation has a big opportunity to reshape things. and it will be you. this audience. yes. >> secretary, thank you. i am a student at the national war college. i would like to turn back to the front page. if i scanned correctly the headlines this morning, you make comments related to north korea and nuclear capability. as i understood it, you are saying a specific level, where

some level of nuclear capability will not be acceptable. could you elaborate on that ? >> well, i was misquoted again. [laughter] thanks for the question. [laughter] george little is here and he likes that kind of question. he is the assistant of public affairs. so keep your answers short, he says. [laughter] [applause] and deny like hell. [laughter] thank you for your question. i'm not sure i said quite that starkly. here is the point. north korea has been a problem north korea has been a problem for not just the region for many years.

the responsible powers in the region, starting with national security -- permanent national security council and japan have been part of talks with north korea for number of years. we have been trying to work with the north koreans to persuade them it's not in their interest and certainly in the korean peninsula's interest -- the south koreans have been part of this as well -- to pursue nuclear weapons. they have nuclear capacity now. delivery missile capacity now. and so, has they have ratcheted up her bellicose dangerous rhetoric, and some of the actions they have taken over the last few weeks present a and clear danger and threat

to the interests certainly of our allies, starting with south korea. and japan. thealso the threats that north koreans have leveled directly at the united states regarding our base in guam, threatened hawaii, threatened to the west coast of the united states. as secretary of defense, and beginning with the president of the united states, and all of our leaders, we take those threats seriously. we have to take those threats seriously. i think we have measured, responsible, serious responses to those threats. as you know, we are undergoing joint exercises with the south koreans now.

we are doing everything we can working with the chinese and others to defuse that situation on the peninsula. but, as i said in a news conference last week when asked about this, it only takes being wrong once. and i don't want to be the secretary of defense who was wrong once. so we will continue to take these threats seriously. i hope the north will ratchet this very dangerous rhetoric down. there is a pathway that is responsible for the north to get on a path to peace, working with their neighbors. there are many benefits to their people that could come. but they have to be a responsible member of the world community. and you don't achieve that

responsibility and peace and prosperity by making nuclear threat and taking very provocative actions. one last question here and i will take one -- yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i am a kernel of the german army. you mentioned the generation of young leaders, especially foreigners who have the opportunity to stay here in your country. for sure, me and my family will never forget this opportunity. horizonsoadened our and deepened our friendship with your country. so my question concerns -- wouldn't it you wiser to have

the same opportunity for my american colleagues, budget cuts, the constraints, make them stay here, not allowed to travel, to make the trips overseas and to learn about other countries? [laughter] [applause] so, if i may say so, if i were one of your advisers, mr. secretary, i would say probably delay the delivery of a warship or a tank or f-35 about one year until we have overcome challenge and let them go. [laughter] [laughter] [applause] what is your opinion about this, sir? >> kernel, you are well on your way to making general. [laughter] i don't know how i add to that

with this crowd. that is a magnificent way to end this. and you all very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> tomorrow, the brookings institution hosted discussion about the challenges facing arab women in the middle east and north africa. the guests will be tara sonenshine. that is live at 11:00 a.m.

eastern time. then live coverage of the withty of american editors discussions on the stock market and how journalist can use social media. live all afternoon on c-span and c-span.org. >> people always like to ask me, how did you come across this story eco people always ask writers that. what happens is you find a new story while you are supposed to be working on something else, which can be a little frustrating at times. that is exactly what happened to me. i was doing little internet research one day. look at this photo. this is the photo i came across. it was on a department of energy website. that put up a little newsletter for one of the department of energy facilities and the

newsletter was saying this month in history, something along that line. i loved this one because there seems to be this beautiful vanishing. at the end of this room. lovelyen just looked so and the have the nice posture and a little 1940's hairdo's. i read the caption, and it said these young women, many of them high school graduates from rural tennessee, were enriching uranium for the world's first atomic bomb. however, they did not know that at the time. but this weekend, a live of women in one of the manhattan project secret cities. saturday at 11:00 a.m. on c- span3. >> this is a third prize winner in c-span's student cam competition. his message to the president focus on government waste and the misuse of taxpayer dollars by some federal agencies.

>> it's no secret that our government wastes more money than most americans could realize or even possibly imagine. >> every year we spend more than we take in. our national debt just gets higher and higher and higher, and at some point the future generations are going to have to pay for that. >> and it's not just the amount of money government is spending that is a huge problem, but the amount of money we are borrowing each year. >> according to the u.s. debt cost, an incredible 36 out of the last 40 years, our government happens spent more money than it has brought in. for example, in 2011, federal tax revenue was $2,170,000,000. the federal budget was nearly $4 trillion, creating a deficit of $1,650,000,000.

that was a huge factor in driving out our nation's debt to over $16 trillion. >> $16 trillion of debt, where does it all go? the answers to some of it may surprise you. this piece of paper is circling around washington tonight. coburncan senator tom said he's unearthed $18 billion in wasted government spending. >> we're subsidizing the promotion to consume caviar. >> but the senator's waste report flags other controversial expenses. food stamps being misused for

booze and spent on high-end starbucks coffee drinks and fast food runs. >> if you're looking at the food stamp program, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that you're providing for people without means and then you're giving them junk food. >> i think 90% of the department of agriculture's budget now goes for food stamps. >> $1 million are being spent every year by nasa to develop a menu of food to be eaten on mars. at a time of layoffs at that agency. and the lake marie airport in oklahoma, just one plate a month, but it gets $150,000 a year from the f.a.a. the oklahoma airport's commissioner told us the only reason he keeps it open is to keep getting federal dollars that he uses on other airports. >> is there anybody in the world who would say no thanks, government, we don't want this money? >> chances are when you think nonprofit, you don't think the national football league. after all, the nfl pulled in more than $9 billion last year, but the league calls itself a nonprofit organization and avoids paying some $40 million in taxes every year. >> what about $1.2 million to national science award to study effects of world of war craft on memory of seniors? millioncally, over $2 per year is wasted by the

department of energy for failure to turn off the lights. federal of waste, the government recently spent $1.5 million renovating 36 toilets at denali national park, alaska. that's about $40,000 per toilet. agencies, government rack up almost $1 billion in unnecessary printing expenses. take a look at this. >> this stack of books right here is called the federal register. for decades, copies have been printed, bound, and sent to thousands of government offices all across the country. no one reads this thing. that's because it's been available on the internet for years. that means taxpayers have been funding some pretty expensive door stops. >> the federal government owes trillions of dollars to china. what most americans don't know is that a lot of that money borrowed from china is used for foreign aid back to china.

>> because of our inability to maintain our fiscal house, we are losing our position as a leader in the world. >> did you know that the department of defense wasted over $100 million in unused flight tickets and never even bothered to collect the refunds, even though the tickets were fully if he fundable? >> the white house has warned the government not to spend taxpayer dollars like monopoly money. you would think no agency would think a christmas party at taxpayer expense. what if they called it a conference and shelled out $5 million? >> f.a.a. officials were in atlanta celebrating the year- end holiday with great relish. flushed with $81 a day of f.a.a. expense money. >> the general services

administration, basically the facilities manager of the united states of government, the mission is to exemplify efficiency, cost cutting, a tax they felt would best be expressed by a lavish $822,000, three-day las vegas conference. >> more than $1 hundred,000 just to plan the four-day las vegas conference. >> some of that money went for clowns and a mind reader. >> $75,000 in a training exercise to put bikes together. >> a final head-spinning price tag, $823,000. >> the final event of the conference was a video contest, and the winner saying about his wishes to waste government money, while his agency was wasting money. >> you think that was fun? that was amazing. i'm glad you won. >> step into the spotlight. receive some more applause. ther. neely, did you attend 2010 western regional conference in las vegas?

>> mr. chairman, on the advice of my counsel, i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> i think the government agencies have almost gotten incestuous that, ok, i'll look the other way on what you're doing if you look the other way on what i'm doing. >> we're facing a very serious fiscal situation. the last four years we've experienced deficits of over $1 trillion a year. we've never had a trillion dollar deficit. >> we're running trillion dollar deficits. the way you get rid of it is a billion at a time. >> it's almost designed to create waste. the system will have to change for the waste generation to slow down some. >> i think you'll find both sides, my party, the left will be saying no changes to entitlements whatsoever. the far right, they'll be saying no revenue whatsoever. what needs to happen, what ultimately will happen will be something somewhere between the 40-yard line. >> when reagan was president and tip o'neill was speaker of the house, and those are both

extremes of both of the parties at the time, but they were willing to compromise and do something for the good of the american people. >> no amount of waste is acceptable, not when it's your money. what should be easy is getting rid of the pointless waste and stupid spending that doesn't benefit anybody. >> it's not acceptable if it really constitutes waste. >> you can't be 100% efficient all the time. but i think the level that the waste is at is unacceptable. >> i don't think there's a way you can cut out all waste, but i think there's no question that our government's waste goes way beyond anybody's normal definition of acceptable. >> so i ask you, mr. president, how do we get rid of the waste and debt that plagues our nation and restore hope to future generations in this disgraced country of ours? great country of ours?

>> you can find this video and all the other winning documentaries at studentcam.org. >> a discussion about the privacy of e-mail and other electronic communication. >> north korea has threatened military action against south korea and its ally, the u.s. next "washington journal," we will give you an update on north korea. we will talk with joshua logan on north korea's nuclear program and secretary of state john kerry's upcoming trip to south korea. michelle floor malloy will look at some other recent developments on the korean peninsula. later, thomas hubbard joins us. he served in the bush

administration from 2001-2004. we will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. each morning at 7 eastern on c- span. >> it is important to remember a central banker, his tools are limited. a central banker cannot control everything that goes on in the economy. us, it is very important what they do, and they really do shape the course of the economy's of the world. that said, at the end of the day, they do have finite powers they can use. they have a dial and they can say we will put more money into the economy or less. it is a lot more complicated as that -- than that. they can regulate banks and try to influence things in other ways. but to think that everything that has gone wrong is their fault is wrong. to think that everything that has gone right -- alan greenspan

problem of too much credit for the great moderation, the many years of strong growth we had in the 2000's. it is easy to blame alan greenspan and the federal overstating things as well. >> neil irwin on after words, sunday night at 9 eastern, part of book tv this week in on c- span2. >> she was out there in a way that respectable women did not do, but this is a new era. this is the time when the women's movement is under way, and interestingly enough, someone like julia tyler kind of fits into a certain extent. she is very conservative in some ways, but in terms of breaking through the traditional way that a woman should behave, she is

doing it in a way that other women are not at that time. >> our conversation with historians on julia tyler is now available on our website, c- .pan.org/firstladies >> president obama argued for stricter gun laws today. colorado recently moved to require background checks for all gun purchases and put limits on the size of ammunition magazines. this is a half hour. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. everybody have a seat. thank you. it is wonderful to be back in colorado and in denver. i want to thank chief white for that introduction.

you have some outstanding officials here today. i want to acknowledge them. a wonderful governor, john hickenlooper. next to him, joe garcia, an outstanding lt. governor. one of the finest young senators, michael bennett is here. terriffic members of the house, ed pearl mutter. and -- and your own mayer, michael hancock is here. [applause] >> i -- i want to say thank you

to the denver police for having me here, and for the outstanding work you do each day to serve your communities. and before i came out there i sat down with law enforcement, holder and the leaders i mentioned, the mayor of aurora, sportsmen, parents. loved ones. of the victims of the shootings in columbine and aurora. protectd about how to our citizens from gun violence. tove wanted law enforcement shape the discussion. law enforcement lives this every day.

law enforcement sees this -- with lives lost and lives broken and communities changed forever. they are often in the line of fire. law enforcement knows what works and what doesn't. we wanted that advice. and we hear from mayors like steve hogan because he is on the front line and he is dealing with these issues under sad circumstances. i came to denver because colorado is a model of what is possible. murder20 days since the

of 20 children in newtown, connecticut which shocked the country and galvanized parents. they said, 'we have to something.' more than 100 times as many have fallen to gun violence in the 100 days. 2,000 struck down, often because they went around their daily route. they didn't do anything special. just shopping, going to school. every day we do something about

it -- more than one million are lost to us a year by gun. the good news is colorado has deterimined to do something about it. [applause] >> this state suffered two of the worst mass shootings. 14 years ago in columbine and last year in aurora. and this state treasures their second ammendment rights, with proud sportsmen and the governor says there is outstanding elk hunting.

a strong tradition of gun ownership from generation to generation. part of the fabric of people's lives. they treat gun ownership with respect. i believe there doesn't have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities. between protecting citizens and our rights. i have stacks of letters from gun owners who tell me how they cherish their rights and don't want them infringed on but want something to stop the epidemic of gun violence. i appreciate each letter and

learned from them. colorado shows practical progress is possible due to gov. hickenlooper and some of the legislaters. aurora is a purple city with a majority city council that came together to learn something had to make sense. this will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people without infringing on gun owners. [applause] in january, a few weeks after newtown, i put forward some proposals along the lines of

what happened in colorado to reduce gun violence. in my state of the union address i urged congress to give them a vote. before we asked, i signed numerous orders. dong what we could to make sure guns didn't fall into the hands of the wrong people. we have to get congress to take the next step. next week, they will be voting. every senator will vote on if we should have background checks for anyone wanting to purchase a gun. background have

checks. they have kept 200 from buying a gun. million from buying a gun. the loopholes that exist allow too many criminals. criminals who don't -- they are allowed to avoid background checks entirely. responsibleir to gunowners who play by the rules. nobody talks about a new system. we talk about sealing the porous system that isn't working. if you want to buy a gun -- you should have to pass a check.und

that is just common sense. [applause] during our last session with gov. hickenlooper, he was in the midst of a passionate debate and some people said background checks won't stop everybody. but as he pointed out, statistically, a lot of folks have been stopped. law enforcement has stopped people who were convicted of murder, people who were under restraining orders for violent domestic abuse. and he mentioned to me law

enforcement has arrested people wh ocame to pick up the gun because they were wanted criminals. this does work. wouldn't you want to know that -- the person you're selling to won't commit a crime? these background checks won't stop all gun crime but will prevent some. 70% gun owners agree that of nra readers agree -- and 90% of american people agree, there is no reason we can't do this unless politics gets in the way.

there's no way we can't do this. every senter wil have a chance to vote on school safety and help thsoe with mental health problems get what they need. and they will see if we can crack down on those who buy guns for the people who mean harm. it would make life safer for those behind me. if we should keep weaons of war off our streets. when compared with a high- capacity magazine, it has the

purpose of pumping out as many bullets as possible, allowing that gunman to shoot 70 people. i don't believe weapons for war have a place in movie theaters. most americans agree with that. [applause] >> most of the ideas are not controversial. supportmericans background checks that prevent dangerous people from having guns. most gun-owners agree. americansdo 90% of agree?

but some senators float the idea of obscure stunts to delay of these reform votes. won'tren't saying they vote but that they will do the vote on the proposal that -- the overwhelming majority of american people support. doesn't your opinion matter. we knew the change wouldn't be easy and voices would do everything to ignore the american people and collapse under fear and frustration and people would stop paying attention. the only time this is different

is the american people demand, this time it must be different to protect our communities and our kids. [applause] we need parents, teachers, police officers and pastors, we need hunters and sportsmen. americans of every background to say, we've suffered too much pain to allow this to continue. we won't wait for the next newtown before we act. that is what the majority of americans, that is what they want, progress. during the conversation a

number of people talked about -- the trust issue. part of the reason it is so hard to get done is because both sides may not listen to each other. the people who take absolute positions on both sides -- they won't concede an inch of ground. i told the story of two conversations i had, when michelle did some campaigning and she had been to a big county with a lot of farmland.

in said, if i was at a farm iowa, i'd want a gun, too. yourody just drives up in driveay and you're not home. you don't know how long it will take for them to respond. i had another conversation a few months ago with a mom from chicago, evanston, ill. whose son was killed in a rnadom shooting. she said -- i hate it when they say he was shot in the wrong place in the wrong time. he was in the right place, going to school. he was where he was supposed to

be. now, both those things are true. we are so divided between rural and urban, folks whose hunting is part of their lives and folks whose only experience with guns is street crime and the two sides talk past one another. wantthan anything, what i to emphasize is they are good people on both sides. but we have to put ourselves in the other person's shoes. if you're a hunter, a sportsman, if you have a gun in your house -- you have to understand what it feels like

for that mom whose son was randomly shot. and if you live in an urban area, you have to understand -- what it may be like if you were on a ranch and your dad took you hunting all your life. all of my experiences have been positive but for others, it may have been negative. if we start listening we may get something done that is constructive. [applause] during this conversation, i hope you don't mind me quoting

you, joe. theade a point that opponents of these laws have caused fear among responsible gun owners with nothing to do with the facts but feeds into the suspicion about government. i need a gun to protect myself from the government, you hear. we can't do background checks because the government will take my gun away. the government is us. [applause] these officials are elected by you. i am elected by you,

constrained as they are by a system that our founders put in place, a government for the people. so surely we can have a debate not based on the notion that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of aurora and newtown or columbine have grieved. we have to get past some of the rhetoric that is perpetuated and breaks down trust and is so over the top. that it shuts down discussion. it is important to say, "hold

on." someoneun-owners hear is taking your guns, get the facts. we don't propose a gun registration, but background checks for criminals. don't listen to what advocates or folks with an interest say. look at the legislation in colorado and if we know the facts and listen, we can move forward. that is what members of congress need to hear. many of the members of congress hold events from their

constituents. ofd out where your member congress stands and if they're not part of the 90% of americans who agree on background checks, ask them why not? be wouldn't you want it to more difficult for criminals to get a gun or close the loopholes that allow them to do this without background checks, and why wouldn't you want it to be easier for law enforcement to do their jobs. many law enforcement members know what it is like to look into the eyes of a spose who has lost a family member to violence. as police officers, you know there is no magic solution to

prevent every bad thing from happening. everyt yourself at risk day and you try to do the best you can to protect the people you are sworn to protect and serve. how can the rest of us do anything less? if there is one step we can -- don't we have the obligation to try? if these reforms keep -- keep

one person from murdering innocent children or moviegoers, isn't it worth fighting for? [applause] i believe it is. thta is why i will keep working and giving my best efforts but i will need help. this is not easy and a lot of members of congress, it is tough for them. those opposing any regulation are very well financed. it can be done if enough voices are heard. tose police officers here help every day, i want to thank gov. hickenlooper and all the

families here for your courage in being willing to take out of this tragedy something positive and helping those people in colorado for coming together in sensible ways. blessyou, denver, god you, and god bless the united states of america. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> later this evening, n.r.a. david keene also talked about gun laws and votes being considered in washington. it was at a dinner hosted by the republican party in pennsylvania. this is a half hour. >> i want to say that it's a real pleasure to be here. here in pennsylvania. i have a soft spot in my heart for pennsylvania. rich was talking about the pittsburgh annual meeting that we held a couple years ago here. that's where i was elected president of the national rifle association and got to know rich. i can't think of anybody who i would rather have introduce me. this is mr. gun rights in this state. \[applause]

it is a particular pleasure to be here but pennsylvania is a great state personally and from the standpoint of the national rifle association. many of you probably know this, there are more n.r.a. members in pennsylvania than any other state in the union. texas doesn't -- \[applause] my wife is from texas and texans don't like to hear this but it is true. pennsylvania's supportive of the second amendment rights has gone a long way. the folks who live here seem to get it regardless on what part of the state they are from, particularly those in the middle part of the state. i remember some years ago being on the panel with james, you remember him. he described pennsylvania as

pittsburgh and philadelphia separated by a third world nation. \[laughter] i said i beg to differ it is pittsburgh and philadelphia separated by america. \[applause] so i can't think of any place i would rather be this evening. i have to tell you i was the c.i.a. -- c.e.o. of cabela's. he said i have to tell you how come wayne lapierre gets to go to the turkey federation and the mule dinner and they send you to harvard? i said i guess that is what happens when you get second choice. meetht, i had a chance to many of you. i thought this was a lincoln day dinner and i see this is a

gathering of n.r.a. members and i truly appreciate that. [applause] noun the national rifle association is not a partisan organization in the sense that the republican party is. i happen to be a proud republican. in terms of the second amendment, the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms in this country is not, never has beens, and should not be a partisan position. the n.r.a. has had its support over years and has had its influence, not because we're a conservative organization or a republican organization, because we're an american organization. n.r.a. members include democrats, factory owners, farmers, businessmen, lawyers -- yeah, lawyers too. people from every walk of life that one can image. this is a lesson for politics, the strength of the n.r.a.

stems from the fact that those who believe strongly in the values that we all share have in common that goes beyond party, beyond whether they are a liberal or conservative, beyond position, beyond class, something that mr. obama understands and this is a dedication to american valley use and principles and freedom that gets them to step forward whenever they are challenged. this is a country, that strength derives in large part from the fact that americans have never been obsessed with politics. i have been, some people in this room may have been but most americans are not obsessed with politics. they are obsessed with their families, living their lives, paying their takes and they to do that without having

to devote all of their time without political activity. but the one thing that has distin wished americans that when those values are threatened our willingness to step up to the plate, whether it the abroad or whether it is here at home. that's what has marked on those who believe in the second amendment rights, when our values are threatened we do what we need to do to step forward. politicians, many politicians, -- i was told by someone i won't name out of courtesy but someone you would be familiar with but the only reason for a party to exist is to get hold exercise power.

my response to that was that is why we got into politics in the first place. that's not why we got active in the political speer. we got active, not so we can hold a job, not so we can exercise power, not so we can aggregate power to ourself but we believe in things. we believe in a view of america that goes back hundreds of years and we believed in preserving the values that we inherited. we believe and do believe we want to pass on the nation and the society to the next generation that we inherited from the last. that's why we're here tonight. not simply because we're republicans. not simply because some of us are running for office or because we hold office but because we believe. a successful party, a successful political movement has to be based on principles and bleefs, values, and

tradition -- beliefs and values and traditions. that's been the strength of the national rifle association. that is the strength of a successful political movement. it is something we must all do all the time, in every way we can. no political movement worth its -- whims of the day. a successful organization meets the needs and the policy goals. there this last election, n.r.a. was criticized, particularly in the media because wayne lapierre and i and chris cox eerns went around saying if -- and i went around saying if barack obama won a second term he would threaten the rights of american. we were told that was a

ridiculous view. chris mathews suggested on the air that wayne lapierre was insane to suggest that. during the campaign, the president said i will never take your rifle, i will never take your shotgun, i will never take your side arm, i'm a believer in the second peament i why i did not like that comment, it meant he had to go against everything he ever said in his political life and every action he has ever taken, even before he was elected to political office. i did want think he believed it. i received letters from n.r.a. members, remember when we preveeve our rights and values are threatened we step up to the plate.

i received letters saying i listened to the president and he sounded fine. i saved those letters until election day, the day which i hoped would turn out differently but didn'tpy sent all those folks a note. noting that within two hours of barack obama's victory speech his state department notified the united nations they would like a small arms trade treaty for signing just as humanly possible. the negotiations that were going on in the u.n. at that time to come up with a treaty that they voted on this week was coming to a conclusion in august. at that point the white house and the state department contacted the unite nation and said that the american administration would like those negotiations put on hold. thingsy noticed that if

are progressing as they were, a small arms trade treaty would appear on the president's desk in september and would become an issue in the president's campaign. the one thing they wanted to avoid was second amendment issues. if they weren't able to avoid them a lot of people would step up to the plate and do what they needed to make sure their rights were safe. right after the election, the president said he wanted the treaty. i wrote to those members and i said the fact that it took two hours to send that letter is a conclude. it is conclude that this guy is -- clue. it is clue that this guy is going to go after your rights. in newtown, connecticut they thought they saw that opportunity. the tragedy that took police there in the minds of the people at the white house and in new york, that was an opportunity to achieve policy

goals they have been seeking for decades. to begin taking guns they could, registering if they couldn't, and limiting the choices that american people have in purchasing firearms if they had to be limited to that. right after the tragedy, the president and others suggested that we needed to ban a list of guns, we needed to have all kinds of measures to keep honest americans from exercising a fundamental constitutional right, all in the name of saving the children. but, in fact, when the president named his vice president to head a task force and invited various people to meet with him, we sent our director and he closed the door and said the president and i know what we want to do and we're going to do it. so let's talk about something

else. it did not shock us, it did not surprise us. it is what we expected. it is our position and i think the position of the american people, that the president and his folks were asking the wrong questions. in the wake of the knewtown, they were not asking how do we protect our children? doy were asking what do we about guns? isn't this a chance to do something about guns? the n.r.a. and others suggested that was the wrong question. as a result of that we asked former congressmen from arkansas, former u.s. attorney, former head of the drug agency and the former number two men of homeland security to put together a task force and right the ask questions and that question was how do we protect

our children? the task force included people like the head of the secret service. they came forward with a series of recommendations, one of which is the one way you protect your children is providing armed security to them because there are people in our society that is of so mentally disturbed they are likely to do anything. the day after the newtown tragedy, i found myself israel touring a facility where school security officers were trained. ack in the 1970's israel had whole spade of shootings. at first, veterans and others rallied to the cause as volunteers and provided security in their schools. over the years that system morphed into something more institutionalized.

each, israel schools, school hires in some way through the school budget or local financing private security to protect the schools in that school.

ood?d?d;d'd/@'@'h'b'g/g?g?%;';

..

i will never forget the first day a cop in baltimore brought on a cell phone that here compiled pursuant to a state court order. i asked him to show me an order. i asked him to show me an application, and it was two paragraphs. it was shorter than his answer is. [laughter] we made every effort to put a stop to that. thes a violation of statute. we need to make clear in whatever revision takes place, this is the law of the land. the law of the land, and there

are not different standards to be applied if you are a local cop or a statewide police officer. there are plenty of authorities to regulate this space nationwide. that is my unsolicited advice to congress to make sure this applies to state and locals as well. >> thank you. on that note, and two weeks, the process -- the constitution , we are-- project separating the 50th anniversary of gideon. i hope you will join us for that event as well. if you would join me in thanking our panel. [applause] north korea has threatened military action against south korea independent of the u.s.. the pentagon has bolstered its military presence in the region. on the washington journal, an

update on north korea. andill talk with josh rogin secretary of state john kerry about a trip to south korea. michelle will look at some the recent developments on the korean peninsula. the former u.s. ambassador to south korea joins us. he served under the bush ministration from 2001 to 2004. washington journal each morning at seven eastern on c-span. >> it is important to remember a central banker, his tools are limited. he can't control everything that goes on in the economy. like us, it is very important what they do. they shape the course of the economy and of the world. at the end of the day, they do

have finite powers. when you boil it down, they have a dial. they can say we can put more into the economy or less. it is more compensated than that, as you and i know. you can regulate banks and transport things. to think that everything has gone wrong is their fault is wrong. to think that everything that has gone right -- alan greenspan got too much credit for the many years of strong 0's.th we had in the 200 it is easy to blame them for the crisis. on after words, sunday night at nine eastern, part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. >> she was out there in a way that, as i indicated before,

respectable women did not do. this is a new era. this is a time when the women's movement is underway. -- she is like julia very conservative in some ways, but in terms of breaking through the traditional way that a woman should behave, she is doing its in it with other women are not at that time. >> >> our conversation with historians on j tyler, the second wife of president john tyler is now available on our irstladies.span.org/ >> according to the secretary of state, the u.s. should seek a treaty that would cover satellite and space debris. he discussed efforts to reach an agreement at an event hosted by

the international institute for strategic studies. this is 45 minutes. >> thank you all for joining us this morning. at the international institute for strategic studies, u.s. , and we are very pleased to welcome frank rose for space and defense policy to speak today about you is a lot -- policy and president obama's second term. for those of you who don't know us well, it is a global think tank with our mother ship in london and here in washington and singapore. those offices grew out of the dialogue that the institutes have pioneered over the past decade. these two also publishes

survival, the annual military balance, the 2013 edition of which, was launched last week and the book series, some of which are on display in the back. this office is a critical part of that broader network. we see to bring a global perspective to washington and bring washington's perspective to a sometimes skeptical audience. it is a membership organization for those who aren't members could find information at the back or on our website. enough about us. we're here to hear from frank. his potion at deputy assistance secretary, frank is responsible for key issues in defense and military response policy. he held various positions in the u.s. house of represents on the house committee on intelligence

and in the offices of to the secretary of defense. he received his m.a. from college in london. having worked with frank in the arms control bureau in the state department, i can tell you one more thing about him. he takes diplomatic engagement seriously. in a bureau with leadership that does a lot of travel i think frank has the record for most miles flown. i want to use the opportunity of his rare presence in washington to let frank give something of an extended troop report on the state's related engagement over the past few years. with that, i will turn it over to frank who will speak for 20 minutes and then we will open up to questions and answers. i should remind everyone we are

on the record. >> sam, thank you for that kind introduction. it is great to be back. as a student in london in the 1990s i spent many hours in the library at the isss's old headquarters. i am dating myself. i am pleased to be here today to talk about space diplomacy in obama's second term. this morning i would like to focus on three issues. first i would like to outline the challenges to the space environment, including space debris and anti-satellite capabilities. second, i will explain how president obama's 2010 national policy seeks to respond to these challenges and i will describe some of the specific initiatives we are working on to implement the president's vision. let me start by discussing the challenges to the space

environment. the benefits of space per me a almost every aspect of our daily lives. for example, information derived from space systems helps us with natural disasters, facilitate transportation globally, revived global access to financial operations, and other activities worldwide. however, the space environment has changed in fundamental ways since the beginning of the space age 50 years ago. back then you had the united states and the soviet union operating space systems. today, over 60 nations operate space systems as well as numerous commercial and academic operators, creating an environment that is increasingly congested. for example, the u.s. department of defense tracks over 22,000

objects in space larger than 10 centimeters of which about 1100 are active satellites. there are also hundreds of thousands of additional objects to small to track but are capable of damaging satellites in orbit in the international space station. over the past five years, we have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of debris. the first was china's thai satellite test in the second was the collision between a defunct russian satellite and a commercially operated satellite. these events are responsible for 36% of all of the trackable debris in low earth orbit. the threat to the space environment will increase as more nations develop and deploy

counterspace systems. therefore it is clear that space is also becoming increasingly contested. today, space systems and their supporting infrastructure face a range of man-made threats that may degrade, disrupt, or destroy assets. as director of national intelligence james clapper testified, space systems and their supporting infrastructures enable it wide range of services. other nations recognize these benefits to the united states and seek to counter the u.s. strategic advantage by pursuing capabilities to deny or destroy our access to space services. threats will increase during the next decade as disruptive and distractive counterspace capabilities are developed. irresponsible acts will have implications beyond the space environment, disrupting worldwide services upon which

civil, commercial, and national security sectors depend. in particular we continue to be concerned about the development of china's altai faceted anti- satellite program. given the increasing threat through irresponsible or unintentional acts to the long- term sustainability, stability, safety and security of space operations, we must work with the community to preserve the space environment for all nations in future generations. noting the challenges to the space environment cannot be solved by one nation alone, president obama's 2010 policy places a high priority on extending international cooperation to maintain the long-term sustainability and security of the space environment. for example, the introduction states, irresponsible acts have

damaging consequences for all of us, all nations have the right to use and explore space but with that right comes responsibilities. the united states calls on all nations to adopt approaches for responsible activities in space to preserve this right in benefit for future generations. the national space policy directs a couple of key goals related to international affairs, even include expanding international cooperation on mutually beneficial space activities to broaden and expand the benefits of space and further the peaceful use of space. and to strengthen stability in space through domestic and international measures to promote safe and responsible use of the domain. improved information collection and sharing for space collision avoidance and strengthening measures to mitigate orbital debris. in pursuit of the goal, the

policy directs departments and agencies of the u.s. government, in consultation with the secretary of state, to strengthen u.s. leadership in space-related activities such as the un community and peaceful uses of outer space, identify areas for potential international cooperation, develop and pursue bilateral and multilateral transparency and confidence building measures to encourage responsible actions and preserve the space environment through the development and adoption of international policies to minimize debris such as the united nations debris mitigation guidelines. let me discuss some of the specific initiatives we are working on to implement. on january 17, 2012, hillary clinton announced that the had decided to work with the

european union and other nations to develop an international code of conduct. she stated "the long-term sustainability of the space environment is at serious risk from space debris and irresponsible actors. unless the international community addresses these challenges, the space environment around our planet will become increasingly inhabited which will create damaging consequences for all of us." it would establish guidelines for responsible behavior to reduce the hazards of debris generating events and increase the transparency of operations and space to avoid the dangers of collisions. the united states believes that the european union' is a useful starting point for developing a consensus. we look forward to participating in the open ending meeting that

the eu will be convening with our hosts, the ukrainian government this upcoming may. these will provide an opportunity to address all elements of the draft code. the united states looks to find agreement on a text that is acceptable to all interested states and bring benefits in a relatively short term. i would also like to discuss the work of the group of government experts on outer space transparency and confidence building measures, established by the un general assembly. the purpose is to examine options for establishing bilateral and multilateral tcmb's to help the space environment. representatives from 14 nations, including the united states, serve on this gge.

the first meeting was in new york city. the key objective is to develop a consensus report that outlines a list of hermetic space tcbm's. legally binding arms control is outside of it. it will hold its next meeting in geneva next week. the goal is to finalize the report by july of this year. another area where we are discussing space security is within the group of g8, which conducted its annual meeting last may. in its role, as president last year, the united states introduced discussions on the

long-term sustainability and security of the space environment within the group. in the nonproliferation director statement, it just sustainability and security in detail. in particular, outer space activities play a significant role in the social, economic, scientific and technological developments of space and maintaining international peace and security. express concern about the growth of orbital debris, which presents an increasing threat to space activities and welcomed the current efforts aimed at establishing a strong consensus on an international code of conduct for outer space activities. we expect space security to remain on the agenda this year with the assent of the uk. at the multilateral level, we have expanded our engagement

within the united nations committee on peaceful uses of the united states on the development and adoption of international standards to minimize debris. the united states is taking an active role in the working group of the scientific and technical committee on long-term sustainability. this working group will be a key forum for the development of international best practice guidelines for space activities. the united states is serving as the cochair of the expert group on space awareness, demonstrating our commitment to making progress to enhance space flight safety and preserve the use of space for the long-term. the goal of the un is to finalize a report and guidelines by the end of 2014. let me also now discuss some of our own ongoing dialogues on space and security with key nations.

over the past three years, we have a number of my lateral dialogues with key nations to discuss space and security issues. these include discussions with traditional allies, france, uk, canada, japan, as well as discussions with new partners, south africa, brazil, india. we also have a robust discussion with the russian federation on space security. we are also trying to engage china on security. we think china is important that the united states and china begin this discussion. first, the united states and china have an interest in maintaining the long-term sustainability of the space environment, especially limiting the creation of space debris. it is important we discuss these issues bilaterally in order to

prevent misperceptions and miscalculations. the united states plans to continue to improve our efforts to discuss these issues with china. let me conclude by saying, as clinton said in her january 2012 statement, the long-term sustainability and the security environment is at risk and unless we take action to reverse these trends, or it have damaging consequences for all of us. united states, working in conjunction with its friends and partners, and is pursuing a comprehensive approach to responding to the challenges to the space environment. this response includes top-down political elements, like efforts to develop an international code of conduct, and technical elements like the work of the long-term sustainability working group of the un.

the ultimate objective is the same -- to reverse the troubling trends that are damaging our space environment and preserve the limited list benefits of space for all nations and future generations. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. i guess i will start with a question before opening it up. you have discussed how the various how the work is more on a technical level. the code of conduct is top-down. where does the gge fit in and how much does the gge and code of conduct negotiations over lap or reinforce one another? >> a couple of points on that. i would say that gge is really focused on the political side of the house. it was established by the un general assembly.

we will eventually present a report to the secretary-general and our guess is that he will likely send that to the un general assembly for their approval. the second point, you talked about complementarity. we see these as mutually reinforcing. the work of the gge will be enforce the work we are doing in the code of conduct. how will we make sure that happens? another good thing is that you have the same group of people that are working these issues across the foreign, for example, the u.s. representative with the gge and the eu. my staff is working with the oceans environment and science,

which has the lead for the un to ensure that everything we do is fully consistent. kind of a long answer but we believe, as i said, different efforts but we have one objective, maintaining the long- term sustainability of the space environment. >> thanks. i would ask you to give your name and affiliation before you ask your question. right here. we have a microphone coming to you. >> [indiscernible] >> that is an excellent question. a couple of points -- the national space policy directs the u.s. government to look at

issues associated with active debris removal. that is removing large pieces of debris in space. i always like to point out there are serious political, technical, financial and legal issues associated with that. for example, one person's debris removal system could be another's anti-satellite weapon. we have begun a review, which is being led by the national security council and the office of science and technology, to implement the direction we received from the president to examine this active debris removal issue. we are very early in the process. we have had some limited engagements. what i would say, there is a lot of issues but we're looking at it closely. >> leaving aside the legality,

what are some of the, since to do that? >> i know the swiss, for example, have opposed this thing like a vacuum cleaner. there are a number of other technologies people are looking at, lasers. i am not an expert on the specific knowledge ease. i am much more focused on the policy. there are also a number of other companies in the united states that are beginning to look at this. i think it is important, given these political, financial, technical and legal issues, to study this issue and make sure we understand the application. the u.s. government has not made a decision on active debris removal. we are studying it. >> an adjunct professor at johns hopkins. first a comment on the

technology, finally talking about two years ago, a program on their website. you discuss some of the technology they are looking at. my question for frank, i was in a gene in january and gasping for breath, having some discussions with some counterparts. i sense that with the chinese, it would be too much to say they are favorably inclined that they are less unfavorably inclined about code of conduct. have you found that and can you go into more detail about what you see vis-?-vis china? >> let me go back to my statement. i said the united states wants to have a dialogue with china for two reasons. one because we both have an

interest in maintaining the long-term sustainability of the space environment. let me tell you a story. many of you have heard this but some of you have not. many of you know that our joint space operations center, which is located at the air force base in california. it provides conjunction notifications to numerous government and operators around the world. including china. if two satellites come close to each other, we will notify the operator so he can prevent a collision. about three years ago when i first took this job, one of these applications was brought to us, to me, to sign off.

a piece of debris from china was coming close to one of their own satellites. my first inclination is -- why reward bad behavior? then i caught myself. i came to the conclusion, if that piece of debris hit china's satellite, that could create more debris and endanger our satellite. i am sincere about this -- the united states wants to have a dialogue with china about this. bruce, i have seen over the last six or seven months a much more active approach with china on china's behalf on engaging the united states on space security issues. i have discussions with officials. i think china is coming to the view that it is important to engage on these issues. the proof will be in the pudding. as i said before the united

states believes it is vital that we have this dialogue, not just to maintain the long-term sustainability of the space environment but also to prevent misperceptions and miscalculations. the united states and the soviet union did not agree on many issues during the cold war. but there was an active dialogue on these types of issues which help manage misperceptions and miscalculations. this is an important area where we think we need to have a discussion with china. >> what i am interested in, the chinese expressed -- they sounded sincere for those notifications. it was not the usual propaganda. they genuinely seemed grateful the u.s. gave them notifications. >> let's take two and then frank you can respond to them.

>> i'm curious how the code of conduct, how much is there from countries like brazil and others you mentioned that you are having bilateral discussions with? thank you. >> i wanted to raise the subject of the announcement the u.s. is going to deploy 14 -- you had mentioned it in our to engage the chinese, given the inherent capabilities of ballistic missile interceptors and the fact that all of these interceptors are going to be on the trajectory of any chinese second strike attack on the united states, isn't this going to complicate our efforts to constructively engage china? >> thanks for both of those questions, even yours, greg. [laughter]

here is what we hear from people around the world. i have been just about every continent except antarctica. generally when you look at the code of conduct, it is generally acceptable. most major nations say it looks pretty good. there are some changes that we would like to see, as colleagues from russia, but even they say this is basically the un general assembly resolution. on the substance, there is a general agreement. the real challenge with the process has been a lack of outreach and the need to get that process together. i think that as a result of a couple of things. the european action service has stood up.

the good news is this -- they have just appointed a new special representative for nonproliferation in poland. he is the former direct your of security policy studies as well as the former head of the wmd center. he has a lot of expertise in multilateral diplomacy. he and i have had consultations and he has had consultations with numerous nations around the world. he understands the challenge is with the process. he is determined to get it right. i think that is the challenge with the code. with regards to your question, secretary hegel said the decision was driven from the threat from north korea. we have a dialogue that my boss, acting under secretary, missile-

defense is on the agenda. a couple of points about missile defense, the ballistic missile defense states we do not seek to undermine strategic stability with russia or china. our missile defenses are not directed against china. we will continue to engage china on issues. it is not going to be it is going to be missile-defense, nuclear issues. we want to prevent the possibility of a misperception and miscalculation. i know the chinese have some concerns. we do not think those concerns are warranted. we will continue to discuss and engage with them on the issue. not just it missile defense and other issues on the bilateral

agenda. >> two in the back. right there. >> frank, i really appreciate all of the outreach or office does. something that concerns me is how do you envision budgetary concerns affecting your work? >> can we take one more from right behind her? >> hi, i am steve from osd. the first question that was about remediation. i would like to ask you about mitigation. what do you see as the top opportunities to prevent more debris? i can see strengthening the un guidelines technically or by trying to get more people to sign up to them or by strengthening our u.s.

government debris practices. or by making more of an effort domestically to adhere to those practices or perhaps something else. what do you see for increasing mitigation? >> the first question about the budget, we will have to see. right now i will continue to do what i have been doing until they say there is no money. we will have to see. with regard to mitigation, let me start by saying i think the u.s. has one of the best records with regards to debris mitigation. this is one of the issues at the international level we are looking at in the un committee on peaceful uses of outer space. we actually have a working group on debris mitigation. someone on my staff is leading

that. i do not have the specifics because i am not the technical expert. i know they are looking at that in detail. when they finalize their report in 2014, there will be a couple of recommendations. at this point, i do not know what list of technology will be there. i can only say we are looking at it actively and i would say the u.s. has a good track record domestically. >> any other questions? but let me ask frank about the code, can you talk more about what you expect from the may meeting? is it open-ended? do we expect a particular outcome, if not in may then there is a schedule of meetings? and then a broader question, can you talk about why -- implicit

in your remarks is an assumption that space is not amenable to legally binding arms control measures. can you give us a bit of an explanation as to why it is more of an area consistent with non- legally binding treaties? >> two good questions. let me talk about the multilateral process. as i mentioned in responding to jennifer, that has been a weak point of the eu's process. i think they understand that. what they are going to do is they have set up a series of open-ended consultations. the first meeting will be in kiev in may. what i understand, based on my

discussions, the object if it is to discuss the key issues and concepts within the code. i understand they will probably reduce another draft based on those discussions. and then there will be a series of additional open-ended consultations. i do not know exactly how many. i think it will depend on how long it takes to get critical mass. with regards to your question on legally binding, the national space policy does talk about legally binding arms control. the previous policy said the united states does not do that. this policy goes back to the long-standing principle with regards to space arms control for the united states. it says the united states will

consider arms control proposals and concepts that are effectively verifiable, equitable, and in the interest of the united states and its allies. the challenge with a space arms control is verifiability. how do you verify these capabilities, which is very difficult to do. the other issue has been the issue of how you define a weapon in outer space. that has been an issue that people have been going back and forth on for over 40 years. my general view, and there is a wonderful book called "politics of space security." one of the things he argues in this book is that when there have been major agreements and

successes with regards to space security, it has occurred when there was an intersection between security and preserving the space environment. for example, in the late 1950s, the united states and the soviet union tested nuclear weapons in outer space. they did it and they severely damaged their own satellites. we had the limited test ban treaty in 1963. it is both an environmental treaty but also a security treaty. the un debris mitigation guidelines is another example. what we are trying to do in the obama administration is to focus on that intersection between security and sustainability. >> ok. is there any -- right here.

>> i was looking for background >> can you identify yourself? >> i'm with princeton university. some background on what i think are two salient issues. one is that we are proceeding, 2a is scheduled to be deployed. these are ready to shoot. they are fully capable of engaging satellite has deployed in their current configuration. i am sure if china were to deploy them, we would not have a lot of doubt about that as far as verifiability. we would know they are capable of engaging satellite.

that is not uncertain at all. meanwhile, the code of conduct's language has evolved one iteration after another, more and more in the direction of not putting impediment to the testing and development and use of anti-satellite weapons but also being permissive of their possession and of their use under the inherent right of self-defense, although no one would say the non-binding code of conduct, specifically in the context of destroying satellites unless it is setting a precedent and providing an affirmative permission to use it in self- defense. obviously therefore to develop them and to possess them. it could even be fully tested without the doing a test against orbital objects. it seems to me as though we have

abandoned any hope of not having a future in which many agents possessing at least anti- satellite weapons in space. >> that is the question. many of these systems are dual capable systems. you really can't verify how these systems -- what i would say, the focus needs to be upon actions. one of the key elements of the code is section 4.3 it says nations will refrain from actions that create long-lived debris in outer space. the problem we have is

verification. maybe in the future we will be able to get around the issue of verification and solve that problem. right now we have not seen any arms control treaties or proposals that meet the criteria laid out by president obama in the national space strategy. >> a quick follow-up, is that like saying we do not need nuclear arms control, let's agree not to have nuclear war? >> what i would say, with all agreements, a key element, is it verifiable? i would argue the treaties are verifiable. i would argue space arms control with our current technology is not verifiable. >> i disagree with that. >> we had a little bit of a

discussion about this before, but i wonder -- i suppose missile and nuclear weapons impede on space. has cyber and cybersecurity concerns, cyber tcbm, how are they linked? >> i think there is a big link, sam. you do not have to necessarily attack a satellite in space to disable the satellite. cyber is another way to go after these issues. there is a definite link. in our discussions with the department of defense and other elements in the u.s. government, we are talking about that. in addition to the space gge, there is a separate information gge.

i am in close contact with my colleague there. >> will that be reflected in some of these documents or will they be kept separate? >> for the time being, they will be kept separate. but as things evolve in the future, that could change. >> bruce has another question. we still have time for some more. >> bruce mcdonald again. we saw last year on the subject of the code of conduct, some voices emerged in the congress that were opposed, not just in congress but outside as well, giving arguments such as, this is really a treaty. this short-circuits the senate, so on and so forth. and then we got into election

mode and all discussions focused on that. now here we are -- i wanted to ask if you could give your sense of any readings you have taken of the attitudes in the senate, on the hill, toward the possibility of a space code of conduct this year and also how you might respond to those arguments you have heard. >> a good question. we are consulting very closely with congress on the code of conduct. i spent a lot of my time briefing the relevant committees. as you mentioned, there are some concerns among some members with regards to the code. but in close coordination, we are allaying many concerns. with regard to the senate, i think it is important that the

code of conduct would not create a legally binding obligation on the united states. it is not in the international agreement. i think it is also important there are a number of these types of political agreements. the bush administration concluded that un debris mitigation guidelines in 2007. in 2002, the code of conduct. the vienna document, which was concluded in 1999. there is a long precedent for this. one of the challenges -- another question we get on the international side is why didn't the eu do this within the un? one of the challenges is that the code deals with security issues but also with sustainability issues.

there is not one forum within the un that deals with these issues in a comprehensive manner. the conference on disarmament deals with security issues. this is really -- they're thinking was you need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. i think it is very difficult to draw distinctions between security and sustainability issues. for example, conducting tests in space is a security issue but it is also a sustainability issue as well. back to your question, we are consulting closely with the congress on this. we are addressing the concerns that have been raised. i want to come to the final

point, this does not create a legal obligation that would bind the united states. that is the key point. that is usually the threshold between the executive branch and congress on these types of issues. >> if i could follow-up, there are a number of legally binding agreements the u.s. enters into. but do not require consent, is that ruled out in the case of the code? >> it will be a politically binding agreement. >> i guess we have time for a follow-up question. >> what is special about the space environment that makes arms control not verifiable?

as compared with space, air, or land? what is special about space it does not work? >> let me ask you this -- how can you verify, from a technology point of view, what is on the top of a satellite? you do not know. the technology is not there. all of the verification experts i have spoken to is faced with the current technology we have. it would be very difficult to be able to tell the senate, were we to negotiate a treaty that was submitted to the advice and consent of the senate, we would have to say this is verifiable. what the experts tell me, and i am not a verification expert. what do they tell me is that they cannot effectively say this is verifiable with the current technology we have. >> on that note, i would like to

thank frank for coming here today. sharing the views on the future of engagement on outer space, and thank you for coming. [applause] >> this morning on c-span, chuck hagel speaks at the national defense university, followed by today's washington journal. later, a discussion about women's rights in the middle east. she was out there in a way that, as i indicated before, respectable women did not do. this was a new era. this is the time when the women's movement is underway. -- juliaike j tire

tyler, she is conservative in some ways. in terms of breaking through the traditional way a woman should behave, she is doing it in a way other women are not. but a conversation with historians, his second wife of president john tyler is available on our website, c- span.org/firstladies. >> it is really significant that this has been preserved through all these years. at one point, there were aroundy about 30 to 40 the valley. only a couple have survived. much are smaller, about a third to a quarter of the size. pueblo grande. these did survive.

it offers an opportunity to study and learn about their lifestyle and learn something about how complex their social and political organization was. one of the great things that we have about archaeology is that when we look into the past and see what people did, like building these canal systems, it gives you hope for the future. if they could do this in the desert with digging sticks, what is it we cannot do? >> this weekend, two of the hippest -- history life in arizona. a look at mounds built by the indians. five on american history tv on c-span 3. first major speech as

defense secretary, chuck hagel morale andcussed readiness. he gave his address at the national defense university in washington, d.c.. >> i am proud to be here and will continue to contribute to our country. i thank you for that service. for our fancy general, to give such a overstated introduction to a retired army sergeant --

[laughter] it is something i rarely get, but i am very appreciative of .he generous introduction to you and all of your staff and colleagues, thank you for what you continue to do for our --ntry in this is institution, an institution that i think is important for our country and the development not only of our leaders but the leaders of other nations who are represented here today. i think it is one of the wisest investments our country has made and will continue to make in developing our leaders, helping other nations develop their leaders, based not just on military doctrine, but on the principles and values of the mutual respect and dignity, and

the rule of law. this facility, this institution, has done that very effectively for many, many years, so i thank you all. generations of military leaders have come to this institution here at fort mcnair to receive training and education. they needed to succeed not just in combat, but in their daily lives. the responsibilities you all will take on will be immense. everyday, you will face decisions with real implications for the safety and welfare of our troops, and the security of our nation. as you move onward and upward in your careers, i would urge you to always keep three questions in mind before making decisions. first, does this help protect

national security? second, is this in america's strategic interest, which include the economic, political, and moral dimensions of our interests and responsibilities? third, is this were the of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families? these questions speak to the department of defense's most basic responsibilities, defending the nation, the advance in america's strategic interests, and keeping faith with its quiet heroes. how we fulfill these interim responsibilities at a time of unprecedented shifts in the world order, new global challenges, and deep global fiscal uncertainty, is the subject of my remarks today. i want to focus on challenges, choices, and opportunities. the challenges posed by a changing strategic landscape and new budget constraints. the choices we have in responding to these challenges,